Poll: Iraqis support attacks on U.S. troops

[JayBee]

Following are the results of two polls, both of which show that an overwhelming majority of Iraqis, majorities of both the Shiite and Sunni populations, and the Kurds, as well, want the Us forces to withdraw. They are telling us loud and clear, "Please leave!!" What more do we need? How many thousands more American boys have to die before we get the message? The time has come to drop the veil of delusion and open our eyes to the facts of the matter.


WASHINGTON (AP) — About six in 10 Iraqis say they approve of attacks on U.S.-led forces, and slightly more than that want their government to ask U.S. troops to leave within a year, a poll finds.
The Iraqis also have negative views of Osama bin Laden, according to the early September poll of 1,150.

The poll, done for University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes, found:

• Almost four in five Iraqis say the U.S. military force in Iraq provokes more violence than it prevents.

• About 61% approved of the attacks — up from 47% in January. A solid majority of Shiite and Sunni Arabs approved of the attacks, according to the poll. The increase came mostly among Shiite Iraqis.

• An overwhelmingly negative opinion of terror chief bin Laden and more than half, 57%, disapproving of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

• Three-fourths say they think the U.S. plans to keep military bases in Iraq permanently.

• A majority of Iraqis, 72%, say they think Iraq will be one state five years from now. Shiite Iraqis were most likely to feel that way, though a majority of Sunnis and Kurds also believed that would be the case.

The PIPA poll, which included an oversample of 150 Sunni Iraqis, has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

The State Department, meanwhile, has conducted its own poll, something it does periodically, spokesman Sean McCormack said. The State Department poll found two-thirds of Iraqis in Baghdad favor an immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces, according to The Washington Post. McCormack declined to discuss details of the department's poll.

"What I hear from government representatives and other anecdotal evidence that you hear from Iraqis that is collected by embassy personnel and military personnel is that Iraqis do appreciate our presence there," he said. "They do understand the reasons for it, they do understand that we don't want to or we don't intend to be there indefinitely."

An Iraqi public opinion research firm with a proven record of conducting scientifically valid surveys conducted the department's poll, press officer Janelle Hironimus said later.

"We will not identify the firm in order to protect it and its employees from danger," she said.

Iraqi officials have said Iraq's security was improving and expanding throughout the country, and most U.S. troops might be able to leave eventually.

Last week, Iraqi President Jalal Talibani told the United Nations that coalition forces should remain in Iraq until Iraqi security forces are "capable of putting an end to terrorism and maintaining stability and security."

[LivinLOS]

I think its pretty nieve to think that America can just pull out of this mess its made with a 'sorry' and wave..

For a start that leaves Kurds pushing for a separtist state.. That brings a separtist movement right into Turkey.. So now we have Turkey involved in a possible civil war not of its own creation or choosing.

Secondly the power vacum left by the US could well be filled by Al Qaeda or close fundamentally alinged groups.. Certainly a whole generation of terror groups will now be learning the skills and tactics to be life time attackers and have a legitimate hatred of what the US has done.

The latter is the real eye popping, head spinning danger... Creating an army of fundamental nut jobs who hate the west and are military trained.. Who will then be surprised at finding the west under attack by even more militant methods.. Looking at the civilian death toll of Iraq its not hard to think that they will attempt many many future large scale attacks. The roots of those future possible problems lie in the what has been done.

Pre emptive war rings a bit hollow now.

[JayBee]

Originally Posted by LivinLOS

I think its pretty nieve to think that America can just pull out of this mess its made with a 'sorry' and wave..

Yeah, those Iraqis are pretty stupid and naive. I suppose it's up to us to make them think the way we do.

You said before that it is "unacceptable" for us to walk away from the mess we made. But, consider that: 1)it is their country, not ours, and they should have some say. The thing that blows my mind about all these right-wing pundits is that, if you buy into their arguments, then, somehow, magically, America is always right, and anyone who sees it any other way is simply wrong. To them, no other point of view has any legitimacy. They fail to comprehend the fact that diiferent people in different parts of the world are always going to have different ways of looking at things, and, sometimes, their views are going to have a great deal of validity, regardless of whether they coincide with ours or not. There is not just one single right way of seeing things. I think the Iraqis should have some say in what happens. After all, it is their country, and their people dying every day. Give them a little more respect, and a little more credit. It is not a matter of walking away. It is a matter of being gracious enough to leave when someone asks you to get out of their house, because they would rather try and fix it themselves(but they won't mind us paying for the materials and labor costs, of course ).

2) As to leaving the mess as being unacceptable; what happened to Mr. Dumpty was quite unacceptable to the king and his men. Neverheless, in spite of their best efforts to correct an unacceptable situation, it ultimately came down to a recognition of the fact that sometimes, when you break something, it is irreparable. The damage we have done is irreparable, as far as our ability to fix it goes. So we must give them a chance to do so, and offer appropriate assistance, at such time as it may be appropriate, desired, and asked for by them.

Originally Posted by LivinLOS

For a start that leaves Kurds pushing for a separtist state.. That brings a separtist movement right into Turkey.. So now we have Turkey involved in a possible civil war not of its own creation or choosing.

Let's face it. The victors of WW I simply made a mess of things when they carved up the old Ottoman Empire. For some reasons, unknown to me, but i suspect having to do with the positions of Turkish troops at the time of the armistice, the nation of Kurdistan was not allowed to become a political reality, but instead was chopped up and allotted to several countries. This was a mistake, which after 90 years, remains yet to be rectified. Do you think that after 90 or 100 years, the Kurds will now give up and go home(well, they would like to, and that is the problem!). They will fight as long as it takes, just as the Sunnis will fight, with jihadists at their side, for 100 years if that is what it takes to expel the Americans. There will be no peace as long as American troops bear arms on Iraqi soil. People will continue to die everyday until there is not an American soldier left there, and, most likely, for a good deal of time afterwards. The bloody wound that has ripped the flesh, that is Iraq, will not stop bleeding in a day. But the process of healing, as painful as it may be, will not even begin until the Americans have gone.[/quote]

Originally Posted by LivinLOS

Secondly the power vacum left by the US could well be filled by Al Qaeda or close fundamentally alinged groups.. Certainly a whole generation of terror groups will now be learning the skills and tactics to be life time attackers and have a legitimate hatred of what the US has done.

This was my biggest fear, and really, for a long time, I could see no alternative to staying the course, because of this eventuality. However, as the polls show, Bin Laden is not liked in Iraq. Moreover, al Quaeda has sided with the Sunnis and fights now against the Shiites, who it sees as having betrayed the cause. If the Sunnis win out, then they will have a debt to pay to Al-Quaeda. If the Shiites win, they will seek retribution against Al-Quaeda for having fought against them. 2 years ago, I wouldn't have given the Shiites a snowball's chance in hell against a Sunni army, which has much more experienced military leaders, and are people with a more warlike temperament. But much has changed in two years. The Shiites have always had the numbers in their favor, but I think that with each passing month, they are learning better how to organize themselves. They know that they cannot afford to lose, or this may be their last chance to break the yoke of Sunni oppression, and finally be able to determine their own destiny. With a couple of more years of preparation, as the US withdraws, I think they will be ready for their date with destiny. And, of course, their ace in the hole, is weaponry from Iran, and, air support coming from, most likely the US, but failing that, from Iran. Iran is most likely training Iraqi Shiite jet and helicopter pilots at this very moment. With superior numbers, superior arms, and superior allies, I think the odds are slowly shifting in favor of the Shiites. But it is still difficult for them to recruit good manpower, when govt. soldiers are viewed by many Iraqis as collaborators. When the Americans are gone, the real Shiite fighters, the future generals and leaders of their forces will emerge from the Shiite militias, not from the sorry bunch of losers currently posing as the Iraqi army.

Originally Posted by LivinLOS

The latter is the real eye popping, head spinning danger... Creating an army of fundamental nut jobs who hate the west and are military trained.. Who will then be surprised at finding the west under attack by even more militant methods.. Looking at the civilian death toll of Iraq its not hard to think that they will attempt many many future large scale attacks. The roots of those future possible problems lie in the what has been done.

Normally, I am a believer in the old saw, "The best defense is a good offense." Certainly that is the Bush rationalization for the current fighting in Iraq. But that is a simplification and so it does not always apply.

In this case, we are the ones creating an army of fundamental nut jobs in dozens of countries with Muslim communities. Our presence in Iraq, coupled with our support of Israel, presents to the Muslim world a very balck and white picture of "good guy" oppressed Muslims fighting against the "bad guy" alliance of Zionists and infidel Crusaders. In the 30's,it was a romantic, heroic adventure for a young, idealistic sort to go fight Franco's fascists in Spain. In Bogies's days, a young buck out to seek danger and adventure may have joined the French Foreign Legion. Nowadays, what could be more exciting for a young idealistic Muslim lad with an excess of testeosterone in him, than to go fight in the Holy Land of the great prophet's tombs/temples in Najaf, and the other holy cities of Iraq.

But when you remove the Crusaders from the pic, and then it is Muslims fighting Muslims, then it is not all so clear. They have to choose sides and fight other Muslims, or not fight at all. They may go to other places to fight, like Afghanistan, but, still, the recruitment pitch is not quite so compelling, no quite so black and white, so easy to buy into. Suddenly, maybe the girl behind the veil next door starts to look a little more iinteresting than going to some Allah-forsaken land to get your nuts blown off.

Originally Posted by LivinLOS

Pre emptive war rings a bit hollow now.

Always did to me!